legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Van Dusen CA1/1
This is the second appeal arising out of defendant’s conviction for felony animal cruelty. In the first appeal, A142665, we affirmed defendant’s conviction under Penal Code section 597, subdivision (b). Defendant now challenges restitution orders made to two entities–BrightHaven, Inc. (BrightHaven) and Oakland Animal Services (OAS)–for costs related to impounding and caring for the cats defendant neglected. Defendant claims BrightHaven was not entitled to a restitution award. As to OAS, defendant contends the award is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale